Republicans see no foul in backing US World Cup team led by birthright citizen while opposing the constitutional right

WASHINGTON (CN) — Congressional Republicans this week said they saw no issues with backing President Donald Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship while cheering for the U.S. national team in this year’s World Cup — even though its star player is a birthright citizen.

Support for America’s immigrant-studded soccer squad among GOP lawmakers comes as the Supreme Court is slated to rule as soon as this week on whether the Trump administration can strip the constitutional right to guaranteed citizenship from the children of noncitizens.

The fight over birthright citizenship burst onto the world stage this month during the World Cup, thanks to breakout U.S. men’s national team star Folarin Balogun, whose two goals during the tournament made him the top American scorer. Balogun, 24, was born in the U.S. after his mother, visiting from her home in London, was kept off her return flight by airline staff who said she was too pregnant to fly.

And like any child of immigrant parents, the future national team striker was guaranteed U.S. citizenship under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which holds that citizenship applies to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Under the second Trump administration, however, the White House has taken aggressive steps to curtail birthright citizenship. On the first day of his term, the president signed an executive order unilaterally ending the constitutional right — a move that faced immediate judicial backlash and that Trump has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

But even as they campaign to eliminate birthright citizenship, the White House and its Republican allies have offered full-throated support of the U.S.’s World Cup entry, going so far as to tie the squad’s success to Trump administration policies. In one notable instance, the Homeland Security Department, which oversees the president’s mass deportation operation, posted an altered image depicting the national team posed in front of the southern border wall following a recent match victory.

“Built the wall,” read the caption underneath the team photo, which featured Balogun. The agency’s post has since been deleted.

Despite what might appear to be a contradiction inherent in support for a sports team whose star player is a beneficiary of a policy they hope to gut, Republicans in Congress said this week any inconsistency was lost on them.

“I don’t think it’s inconsistent at all,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told Courthouse News during a news conference Wednesday. “I think we can celebrate immigration and legal immigration. We embrace that, we know it’s part of our history.”

Johnson, though, said he thought birthright citizenship could be “abused” by people who cross the U.S. border to give birth. He added that immigrants should “assimilate” to the U.S. and “not try to transplant Sharia law and all these other things and change who we are.”

South Carolina Representative Ralph Norman argued the fight against birthright citizenship and support for birthright citizens on the U.S. World Cup team were “two separate issues.”

“You’re dealing with a sports team, and you’re dealing with policy,” Norman told Courthouse News. “If you take the combined different views of all the players on each team, you’d come up with a different plan each time.”

Pressed on whether Republicans could support a player like Balogun and also campaign to strip future immigrant children of guaranteed citizenship, the South Carolina congressman repeated his position that they were separate issues.

Georgia Representative Rich McCormick argued there was no dilemma for Republicans because Balogun had already been granted citizenship and would not “retroactively” be stripped of his right under Trump’s executive order. He added that U.S. immigration policy should be “common sense.”

“If there are jobs to come to, and you’re paying taxes, everybody’s happy,” McCormick said. “If you come here and you’re starting to take welfare and we’re paying for you to be here, that’s a cost to America.”

And Missouri Representative Eric Burlison concurred, telling Courthouse News that Republicans could “definitely” support the U.S. national team despite the birthright citizenship question.

“He followed the law; he was here with the law the way it was,” said Burlison of Balogun. “The question is if you support the way it’s going to be going forward. I think you can support both.”

Democrats, meanwhile, were less convinced that their GOP colleagues could square the two.

“I think that’s a very tough challenge for them,” said Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, who added that the U.S. national team was “a beautiful embodiment of birthright citizenship and the way that we all benefit from international migration.”

Florida Representative Maxwell Frost agreed. “How are you supporting this team when you want all these people to not be here?”

And New Mexico Representative Melanie Stansbury told Courthouse News that Republicans had “tied themselves in knots” to justify the Trump administration’s immigration policy. “Certainly, we’re cheering on every member of our team, and we’re fighting as Democrats to make sure that all members of our immigrant community are protected.”

Amid the U.S. team’s meteoric success at the World Cup — the squad has clinched a spot in the next round of the tournament and will next face Bosnia and Herzegovina on the pitch — the Supreme Court is slated to rule on whether Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship can move forward.

The White House has said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was only intended to grant citizen status to the children of formerly enslaved people. They’ve settled on a novel interpretation of the Constitution, claiming people in the country illegally or on a temporary basis are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. law.

The Supreme Court could rule on the birthright citizenship case as early as this week. There are just eight opinions remaining on the high court docket before the end of the current term.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss